Crazed individuals do not tend to carry out mass killings in malls, movie theaters, schools, etc. by smoking at potential victims, driving their polluting cars near potential victims, drinking in front of potential victims, or by conceiving or giving birth to children in front of potential victims.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 9:24:00 AM (view original):Crazed individuals do not tend to carry out mass killings in malls, movie theaters, schools, etc. by smoking at potential victims, driving their polluting cars near potential victims, drinking in front of potential victims, or by conceiving or giving birth to children in front of potential victims.

They do, however, tend to use guns.

Does that help clarify the issue?

How many people are killed by crazed individuals with assault weapons annually? How many people are killed by Joe Citizen smoking each year? Joe Citizen needs an assault weapon as much as he/she needs a cigarette.

My point being - So its OK to ban an assault weapon that kills less than 1000 people a year... But not OK to ban unneeded cigarettes that kill in the millions each year.... Or even unneeded alcohol which kills in the millions each year? Im confused on how you are drawing the 'line' here.

I'm confused as to why you're bringing tobacco and alcohol into a discussion about assault weapons.

But I'll play along, for one response only:

Tobacco: people kill themselves with tobacco. They don't kill anybody else, unless it's a freak incident in which a discarded butt causes a fire which kills other people. Tobacco is highly regulated and highly taxed, and the trend has been that tobacco use has gone down steadily over time. I don't see that downward trend slowing down or reversing anytime soon.

Alcohol: while some people do kill themselves with alcohol, I'm assuming that your "kills in the millions" comment is referring to drunk driving. "Kills in the millions" is an exaggeration, as the numbers I've seen from a quick browse of various web sites estmate alcohol related traffic deaths in the U.S. range from 16,000 to 45,000. That's a separate problem, one of personal responsibility. A complete ban on alcohol has been tried once, and failed poorly. I already addressed that on page two of this thread (my post of 12/17, 9:33am).

Also, I'm not talking about a complete ban on guns. That would cause more problems than it solves (refer to the post I just mentioned). I'm just questioning "is there a reasonable common ground? And if there is, do high capacity mags/clips, and assault weapons have a place in that reasonable common ground?"

Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 10:21:00 AM (view original):I'm confused as to why you're bringing tobacco and alcohol into a discussion about assault weapons.

But I'll play along, for one response only:

Tobacco: people kill themselves with tobacco. They don't kill anybody else, unless it's a freak incident in which a discarded butt causes a fire which kills other people. Tobacco is highly regulated and highly taxed, and the trend has been that tobacco use has gone down steadily over time. I don't see that downward trend slowing down or reversing anytime soon.

Alcohol: while some people do kill themselves with alcohol, I'm assuming that your "kills in the millions" comment is referring to drunk driving. "Kills in the millions" is an exaggeration, as the numbers I've seen from a quick browse of various web sites estmate alcohol related traffic deaths in the U.S. range from 16,000 to 45,000. That's a separate problem, one of personal responsibility. A complete ban on alcohol has been tried once, and failed poorly. I already addressed that on page two of this thread (my post of 12/17, 9:33am).

Also, I'm not talking about a complete ban on guns. That would cause more problems than it solves (refer to the post I just mentioned). I'm just questioning "is there a reasonable common ground? And if there is, do high capacity mags/clips, and assault weapons have a place in that reasonable common ground?"

My point is where do you draw the line and what is reasonable for you is not reasonable for someone else? And once you start drawing that line you open up a lot of other unintended consequences. You are looking at this issue in a vacuum as evidenced by the question you keep repeating and repeating and repeating. Swamp is pointing out that by scaling back simply on rights for assault weapons 'for the good of the people' because of a few bad apples (and let's face it mass murders by assault weapons are an outlier and not the norm) then you open up the door to scaling back more freedoms like drinking, smoking, car ownership, family size etc for the 'good of the people'. You'll see that at 30,000 feet.... You are at ground level IMO.

The "freedoms" you list are already scaled back (your words), or regulated/limited (my words).

Minors below the age of 18 are not allowed to buy tobacco in most places.

Minors below the age of 18 are not allowed to purchase or consume alcohol in most places.

Minors below the age of 16 are not allowed to drive a car, and adults need to be legally licensed to drive a car. Driver's licenses can be legally revoked for a number of reasons.

Don't kid yourself into thinking we live in a truly free society, and that discussion about additional gun control is some sort of subversive threat to your perceived freedom. In the big picture, any changes to current gun control laws is just an additional tweaking/refinement to limits that are already in place today.

Posted by stinenavy on 12/31/2012 10:53:00 AM (view original):It's not opening the door for anything, since there's no series discussion about those other issues, only the paranoid think there are or will be.

When passing dodd frank there was no discussing that passing the law would mean people that can't afford to keep $1500 in their bank accounts or don't have good enough credit for a loan will get charged to have a simple checking account.... Guess what?

When passing obamacare their was no discussion that fulltime jobs would soon become part-time jobs... Its not upper and middle management going part-time.... Its those that really need the hours.

While I agree assault weapons are scalable.... I think its outright stupid to think their won't be other unintended consequenses and I'm certain It won't stop those that want assault weapons from obtaining them. Like mike said.... Is this a knee-jerk reaction to an uncommon occurrence so that we can 'feel' better or will the law truly help.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/30/2012 12:31:00 PM (view original):Do they have parents who could, or should, supply them with access to health care?

I'm 100% certain that I do not want parents armed at school to protect their children.

does it really matter? Are there different degrees of innocence?

It does.

Parents, you know the people who choose to have kids, can provide healthcare to those kids. That's part of the child-rearing process. PARENTS take care of THEIR CHILDREN.

They send them to school to get an education. I think we, as taxpayers, have an obligation to educate and protect those children when they're at school. I don't think we, as taxpayers, have an obligation to house, feed and provide medical attention those children.

But, if you really want to make it an issue, I'd be OK with providing healthcare to minors. It's not their fault that their parents are deadbeats.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/30/2012 11:43:00 PM (view original):So none of the anti-gun types has had the guts to stand up and answer the big question...

Is there any evidence to support that an AG ban would reduce crime in America??

I realize you need to hurry up and try to ban as many guns as possible before people go back to supporting 2nd amenment freedoms but it will only take a few moments to answer the question...

Let me help you...The word that bests answers the question begins with an N and ends with an O!

Question for swamp:

Why does Joe Citizen need a high capacity assault weapon?

The very premise of the question is flawed to me.

The government does not get to ask for a reason to take the rights of citizens away. They have to show a reason to take away rights.

And example would be "We have evidence that an assualt gun ban would reduce violent crime in America".

Given that I will now address the question.

1 Farmers need them for dangerous predators
2 Hunters need them to make hunting easier.
3 Every single sitizen in America needs them in the event of a tyrannical givernment.

The Constutution gives you the right to bear arms. It does not give you the right to bear any and all arms that you choose. Does it give you the right to own an RPG launcher? There already are limits to the kinds of arms that citizens can own. Stop acting like the question of additional limits is a threat to the Second Amendment and the downfall of American society.

1) Farmers make up less than 1% of the U.S. population. Most of them are not threatened by "dangerous predators" on a daily basis. Most of them are probably not threatened by them ever. So that's a bad-faith answer.

2) Why should hunting be "easier"? Isn't part of the attraction of hunting the thrill of the hunt itself?

3) Do you personally feel threatened by a tyrannical U.S. government? Do you live in an isolated cabin in the wilds of Montana or Idaho? Are you close to completing your manifesto?